The OP certainly isn't wrong, and all the fanboys getting in a line to piss on him because they lack an ounce of empathy is just sad.

So you suggest that even after getting several substantial upgrades, that the upgrades should keep coming? Please explain to me mathematically how such a universe could exist. You do realize that the nature of upgrading your character necessarily reduces the chance for upgrades in the future, right?

It sounds like you're saying "You should get a lot of upgrades even when you have great gear". Sorry but that's quite impossible from a design standpoint.

Well.. there is a WAY to give you what you're asking for, that would be to eliminate the chance for BiS items from anyone not already in T6. Make it so the best item you can get in T1 will only help you get to T4 or so at best. And have items scale up from there. So you get plenty of upgrades at T1, T2, T3, etc..That's not really my idea of a good plan.Also, once you reached T6 you'd be in the exact same place you're saying it's legitimate to complain about now, where you have good gear but complain about not getting "even better" gear.

It's not unreasonable to expect a progression of loot over the entire course of the game. The developers have said countless times: Diablo is about the promise of loot. When loot stops showing up, what's left to pursue?

It is unreasonable to expect a LINEAR progression of loot. It is mathemathically unreasonable, actually.

They buffed the crap out of craftables for a reason. Its another path of upgrading. I found 3 pieces of new inna´s(chest, belt, pants and 4 pieces(2xchest, pants and shoulders) of lv70 monk set. I still dont use them bcuz i dont wanne break my 2pc(3pc bonus with rorg) aughilds. So pls stop crying about not finding set items.

The OP certainly isn't wrong, and all the fanboys getting in a line to piss on him because they lack an ounce of empathy is just sad.

Opinions are never wrong. However, the consensus of THIS community is that we don't want a different QQ thread about RNG every day. The OP has not started any actual discussion about RNG, not proposed anything interesting, nor has he even attempted to do anything but vent. Surely venting is acceptable, but if your only reason for posting here is just to rage about your bad luck you aren't going to endear yourself to the community. There are plenty of people, myself included, who haven't had great luck (I've spent like 4000 blood shards on gloves so far and no Tasker and Theo) but who keep pushing through it.

The fact that the OP continues to act as if he speaks for the majority and continues to make completely false statements like "most people won't get a set item if they play 10k hours" smacks of complete ignorance and leads people to say that he's just looking for instant gratification. Like it or not, that's precisely how it comes off. If you want to make a point it is much more potent when you're not exaggerating it to completely unrealistic levels that everyone knows is wrong.

If it takes people 7.5k hours to put together a single Torment set, yeah, I think most people would agree that's "too long." But to base your entire opinion on the fact that many people (who don't play much) have complete torment sets for all their characters and that MOST people haven't had a single set drop.... that's just complete bullshit. It's like starting an discussion by saying that the sky is pink and then calling anyone who says "no, I'm looking out my window and the sky is blue" a liar and a fanboy.

There's a difference between expecting REASONABLE and FACT-BASED discussion and being a fanboy. It's an important distinction.

Quote from PaulAcid» Good. Posting whining threads about RNG drops has been discussed quite a bit and the consensus among the community is "F#@# that."

I'm part of the community, and I disagree with you. You don't speak for the community any more than the OP does.

I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't matter because the moderators disagree with you.

These are discussion forums. They're not forums for daily whiney ranting. The moderators try to make these forums more highbrow than the battle.net forums and they do a pretty good job. Problems only tend to arise when people like the OP come around to bombard us with their sob stories. And it's not about a few posts. The OPs only posts here have been "WAH WAH WAH WAH WAH RNG." There's no substance. There's no discussion to be had. There's nothing productive that can come from it.

And that's why it's frowned upon and that's why the OP is going to end up banned. PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION. It's not really negotiable and the moderators are generally pretty accepting of the OCCASIONAL venting post. With the OP, though, it's not occasional, it's a huge habit. And that *is* a problem, whether you want to be argumentative or not, mister "I just registered today and haven't posted in any threads other than this QQ thread."

I asked the simple question: How many actual full hours of grinding rifts do you think is acceptable between reasonable upgrades?

This question with "hours" is a LINEAR progression. Any realistic progression discussion will have to depend on how good your current gear is. If you have near perfect gear, the answer will be years, not hours.

It is unreasonable to expect a LINEAR progression of loot. It is mathemathically unreasonable, actually.

I never said that I expected a linear loot progression for the entire game, and I agree that it is an unreasonable expectation.

I asked the simple question: How many actual full hours of grinding rifts do you think is acceptable between reasonable upgrades?

So far the only answer I've seen is that months between upgrades is an acceptable timeframe. I disagree.

If the answer can NEVER be months, you've created an impossible scenario. Either they must constantly make better gear, or something else must enter the equation to reduce the quality of your gear. Neither is going to happen, most likely. So you're left with a graph that will clearly demonstrate quality of gear directly correlates (and in this case correlation DOES equal causation) to the time required to get better gear. It is inevitable that such a graph will eventually move from minutes to hours to days to months to yes, even years, if there's only one possible stat on one possible item that you could improve. Hell, it's impossible to make a graph that doesn't essentially end at an infinite time required for an upgrade, simply because the odds of getting that 372% Thunderfury to replace your 371% Thunderfury with perfect stats are just that astronomical.

" Perhaps they should just allow you to fully outfit your characters within the first month of playing so that you'll get bored with the game and stop playing then?"

Why do people keep repeating this above statement all the time? People were able to finish gearing their characters in Diablo II comparatively easily, they didn't simply quit afterwards, but started over again with new characters.

If you have to stop people from being able to progress with their characters in order to keep them playing, you're doing something horribly wrong.

I asked the simple question: How many actual full hours of grinding rifts do you think is acceptable between reasonable upgrades?

So far the only answer I've seen is that months between upgrades is an acceptable timeframe. I disagree.

You seem to be acting dense on purpose. It clearly depends on your existing gear. If you're just 70 you're probably going to find a significant upgrade every hour for a while. If you're a T6-capable character you'll probably go weeks or months between significant upgrades.

Because you keep referencing timeframe but not acknowledging gear level, you're implying that, at all gear levels, there should be X hours between upgrades. Any Diablo "fan" knows that's simply not how it works. Finding an 8/8/20 Vamp Gaze was a lot harder than finding a 6/6/15 Vamp Gaze. Most people found dozens of the "mediocre" Vamp Gazes for every "perfect" (or near-perfect) one they found. That is how randomly-generated loot works.

Trying to slap a "you get an item every X hours" label on the situation just doesn't work. If your gear is in the 99th percentile then there's no way you're going to see many upgrades. And it's reasonable to say that someone in the 90th percentile is going to see fewer upgrades than someone in the 75th percentile. You do understand that, right?

EDIT
We could take this to an absurd level. My DH is almost level 68 as I type this. So far he's found 17 total Marquise gems. Only one of those 17 has been an Emerald. He has found at least three of every other type. Maybe I should demand to know "How many hours between Marquise Emeralds is acceptable?" Then again, that's a pompous, douchey, question to ask because it's based on the premise that RNG should NEVER EVER SCREW ME OVER BECAUSE I AM A SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE.

Quote from WD Jesus I asked the simple question: How many actual full hours of grinding rifts do you think is acceptable between reasonable upgrades?

So far the only answer I've seen is that months between upgrades is an acceptable timeframe. I disagree.

You seem to be acting dense on purpose.

This is a perfect fit with my first impressions of this forum. Are insults really helpful to a meaningful dialogue?

I asked this question the way I did because the way in which it's answered shows a point where someone may not be willing to invest the time anymore. It ties the math to the actual human experience of playing the game. If you reach a point with your character where you haven't seen a reasonable upgrade in 100 hours would you be ok with that? How about 200 hours? At what point does it become more of a chore than fun? At what point do you just stop playing?

I asked this question the way I did because the way in which it's answered shows a point where someone may not be willing to invest the time anymore. It ties the math to the actual human experience of playing the game. If you reach a point with your character where you haven't seen a reasonable upgrade in 100 hours would you be ok with that? How about 200 hours? At what point does it become more of a chore than fun? At what point do you just stop playing?

Drop tinkering will sadly never solve this problem. If your gear is good enough, you will need to play 1000000 hours to hope for a 0.1% upgrade. That's what ladder seasons are for.

I asked this question the way I did because the way in which it's answered shows a point where someone may not be willing to invest the time anymore. It ties the math to the actual human experience of playing the game. If you reach a point with your character where you haven't seen a reasonable upgrade in 100 hours would you be ok with that? How about 200 hours? At what point does it become more of a chore than fun? At what point do you just stop playing?

Drop tinkering will sadly never solve this problem. That's what ladder seasons are for.

In my opinion, tinkering won't fix any of the loot problems. The system needs a full overhaul from A to Z.

I asked this question the way I did because the way in which it's answered shows a point where someone may not be willing to invest the time anymore. It ties the math to the actual human experience of playing the game. If you reach a point with your character where you haven't seen a reasonable upgrade in 100 hours would you be ok with that? How about 200 hours? At what point does it become more of a chore than fun? At what point do you just stop playing?

Drop tinkering will sadly never solve this problem. That's what ladder seasons are for.

In my opinion, tinkering won't fix any of the loot problems. The system needs a full overhaul from A to Z.

No overhaul will solve the problem, as long as items are permanent. You are asking for the mathematically impossible. Tiered drops can only delay the inevitable for a small time, and is generally hated, as seen by 1.0. If you are suggesting a system where items will randomly break, I don't think that goes well with the player base.

This is a perfect fit with my first impressions of this forum. Are insults really helpful to a meaningful dialogue?

I asked this question the way I did because the way in which it's answered shows a point where someone may not be willing to invest the time anymore. It ties the math to the actual human experience of playing the game. If you reach a point with your character where you haven't seen a reasonable upgrade in 100 hours would you be ok with that? How about 200 hours? At what point does it become more of a chore than fun? At what point do you just stop playing?

But you're asking a false question to begin with, which is why I said you're being dense (and argumentative) on purpose.

There are max rolls on gear. Therefore, as your gear gets better, upgrades are going to become more rare. It's not very difficult to understand, yet you keep insinuating that if you don't find an upgrade every X hours that the game has "lost its fun" or some such. If you have a bunch of near-perfect gear, that's the reality of having such good gear.

So, really, it's INEVITABLE that eventually you go 200 or 500 hours without an "upgrade." As such, what you're arguing is that eventually Diablo will become not-fun because of lack of upgrades. And? It happened in D2 too. The AVERAGE person didn't play D2 for 10 years, or 5 years. What does that matter, though? ARPGs aren't designed to have an infinite lifespan for the average player.

An infinitely more important question is "Did I have fun while I played the game?" not the "THE GAME SHOULD HAVE LASTED 25,000 HOURS BUT GODDAMN GEAR IS HARD TO FIND" exercise in futility that you're trying to put us through.

Aside from constantly adding new tiers of gear (in the style of an MMORPG) how exactly do you have constant, linear, gear progression for the life of a game? I'd love to hear how you'd do it because I don't think it's possible and I think that your whole line of logic here is just faulty to begin with. Even with MMORPGs you don't have linear gear progression as there tends to be a rush of new gear at the beginning of a tier that tapers off slowly towards the end of the tier then repeats. Meaning, even with new tiers of gear, you'll still find that at one point you're finding upgrades faster than at another point.

Like I said, have live span on gears. Since your gear constantly degrades, you will constantly find upgrades. That way, the OP will be happy. If you think about it, MMORPG's that always introduce better gear in very frequent intervals is essentially doing the same thing, no?

Quote from WD Jesus I asked the simple question: How many actual full hours of grinding rifts do you think is acceptable between reasonable upgrades?

So far the only answer I've seen is that months between upgrades is an acceptable timeframe. I disagree.

You seem to be acting dense on purpose.

This is a perfect fit with my first impressions of this forum. Are insults really helpful to a meaningful dialogue?

I asked this question the way I did because the way in which it's answered shows a point where someone may not be willing to invest the time anymore. It ties the math to the actual human experience of playing the game. If you reach a point with your character where you haven't seen a reasonable upgrade in 100 hours would you be ok with that? How about 200 hours? At what point does it become more of a chore than fun? At what point do you just stop playing?

I'd like to point out that Shaggy just delivered you a well thought, well written post and you appear to have completely disregarded it because of that one line. That's kind of sad.

Also, if you reach the point where you've invested 100-200 hours into a game, it doesn't NEED to be fun anymore. If it is still fun, then great! If it's not, well, you got your money's worth. Some $50-60 games last 3-4 hours before they get old. Do we really need to complain about the longevity of Diablo 3?

Like I said, have live span on gears. Since your gear constantly degrades, you will constantly find upgrades. That way, the OP will be happy. If you think about it, MMORPG's that always introduce better gear in very frequent intervals is essentially doing the same thing, no?

But that doesn't solve much. It trades one form of burnout for another.

Yes, people who get near-max gear will burn out. But, by the same breath, making people run on a treadmill because eventually their existing gear decays will cause other people to burnout. Imagine how infuriating it would be if your near-perfect SoH decayed and you didn't have an appropriate replacement. How many people are really going to want that kind of system in ANY game? These are games, afterall, and not professions. There is no way the average gamer, or even the average ARPG fan, would embrace that kind of system.

Most of us are looking to improve our gear and slowly move towards that "max" scenario. We're not looking for the game to, more or less, delete our existing items after a certain amount of time has passed. I get what you're suggesting but I don't think that creating a "three steps forward, two steps backwards" mechanic would really add anything to the game. In fact, I think it would create MORE frustration than what WD Jesus is complaining about. In my opinion, having some kind of "gear decay" would be vastly less desirable than having a game where your gear progression slows as your gear improves.

This whole train of thought revolves around the idea that games should have infinite duration and that's something i roundly reject. D3 doesn't need to last for a decade. It just needs to be a fun game to play while it lasts. Instead of trying to work out how to make the game fun in 2020 they should be thinking about how to make it fun in 2014 and 2015.